Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point
by cm2187 on Saturday October 24, 2015 @06:48AM
(#10443171)
I see no justification for an exemption of capital gain tax on primary residence. This should be the way increase in property value should be taxed. If you realise that gain (like if you sell a stock), then you have cash that can be taxed. And property would become like any other investable asset.
But it is absurd to tax someone on an income he doesn't have.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point
by petercooper on Saturday October 24, 2015 @07:33AM
(#10443260)
I see no justification for an exemption of capital gain tax on primary residence.
Well, maybe if you get a "rollover" relief - but otherwise, such a tax would significantly lower the velocity of the property market (which is already suffering, not least because of a similar tax - stamp duty).
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point
by eru on Sunday October 25, 2015 @07:51AM
(#10446685)
> But it is absurd to tax someone on an income he doesn't have.
You have the income. It's just never hits the market. If you have your own property and live in it, you are producing and consuming `housing'. That can be taxed.
Similar arguments apply for idle property. Opportunity costs are real.
Property is widely considered the only form of investment that is safe and pays a decent return, while interest rates hover near zero.
London could really do with a property tax that isn't capped like council tax. The recent SDLT changes are a surprising improvement, and there's even work being done on the "holding company" loophole. I'd suggest 1%, or 5% if the beneficial owner isn't resident in the UK for income tax purposes or is a company in a tax haven.